WWI and WWII Discussion

[SPC]

Here's a discussion thread to discuss the two World Wars. Just a question for advocates of U.S. intervention in these wars:
1. Using the just-war theory, what justification did America have to get involved in WWI (and don't say "Lusitania". That was a British ship that had prior warning about a German attack.)
2. If the U.S. had not intervened in WWI, would it have been more likely that a treaty fairer to the Germans would have ended it, rather than the one-sided Versailles Treaty?
3. Had a less one-sided treaty than Versailles ended the war, would it have been as likely for Hitler to have risen to power on a nationalistic platform?
4. Had the British not drawn artificial boundaries for Eastern Europe and the Middle East, would the conflicts in the Balkans, Palestine, and the Muslim World have been as likely?
5. Should Roosevelt and Chuchill have opened up their immigration policy to Jews and other non-Aryans fleeing Nazi Germany?
6. Would the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor have happened if Roosevelt had not placed sanctions against Japan?
7. If we needed to declare war against Germany to stop Hitler, why didn't we 'need' to declare war on Russia to stop the genocidal Stalin? Did we 'need' to declare war on France in the 19th Century to stop Napoleon?
8. Given that Hitler couldn't cross the English Channel, how likely would it have been for Hitler to invade the United States?
9. Does it matter that German civilians were targeted during both wars?
10. Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki really necessary to end the war, since the Japanese were willing to negociate a conditional surrender?

[SPC]

SPC asks...If we needed to declare war against Germany to stop Hitler, why didn't we 'need' to declare war on Russia to stop the genocidal Stalin? Did we 'need' to declare war on France in the 19th Century to stop Napoleon?

Wow.  Just...wow.  When will the ignorance end?  I have met more people who think we declared war on Germany and Italy because they were totalitarian states, to save the Jews of Europe, to liberate France and to end tyranny and Fascism.

That's not what happened.  We declared war on Germany and Italy because...<drumroll>...they declared war on us first. When someone declares war on you, it's generally thought that a state of war exists.  Now, we can argue til doomsday about what Roosevelt MIGHT have done if Hitler and Mussolini had held their fire.  But they declared war, immediately stepped up their already aggressive sub warfare campaigns and left us with no choice.

We were not and should rarely be in the business of fighting wars to liberate others.  And in those rare circumstances where it may be warranted, they damn well better be the kind of people who demonstrate a willingness to fight WITH us.

Often, people say, "Well, France helped America win freedom from British tyranny".  Sure -- okay, fine.  Couldn't have done it without them.  But we bore the brunt of the fight for years and had a demonstrated committment to liberty.  And then once liberty was secured, the French did not stay for eight years, building green zones around Philadelphia and rooting out British and Tory resistance.

Sorry for the rant.  But I have to wonder if the question wasn't headed in that tired, worn out direction of "Well we fought Hitler to end tyranny so why not Saddam?"  I'm getting pretty friggin' sick of that load of crap.

Even though most people answered that Hitler wouldn't have invaded the United States? If someone tells you they want to fight, but there are several people between you, and you could easily beat them, why bother?

[SPC]

1. Using the just-war theory, what justification did America have to get involved in WWI (and don't say "Lusitania". That was a British ship that had prior warning about a German attack.)

Perhaps the Zimmerman telegram is your best bet. Trying to provoke Mexico to attack the US is clearly grounds for war. Keep in mind that the US was already supplying France and Britain with weapons before then.

And why were we supplying weapons when we were supposedly neutral?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It didn't happen at the end of the Napoleonic wars.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north71.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Tell that to Osama bin Laden, whose fatwa against America cites the sanctions against Iraq.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wasn't this a violation of our supposed neutrality? Also, doesn't this give the Japanese a good reason to bomb Pearl Harbor, from their perspective?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If that was the case, wouldn't it have made more sense to bomb the Soviets, if at all?

[SPC]

SPC asks...If we needed to declare war against Germany to stop Hitler, why didn't we 'need' to declare war on Russia to stop the genocidal Stalin? Did we 'need' to declare war on France in the 19th Century to stop Napoleon?

Wow.  Just...wow.  When will the ignorance end?  I have met more people who think we declared war on Germany and Italy because they were totalitarian states, to save the Jews of Europe, to liberate France and to end tyranny and Fascism.

That's not what happened.  We declared war on Germany and Italy because...<drumroll>...they declared war on us first. When someone declares war on you, it's generally thought that a state of war exists.  Now, we can argue til doomsday about what Roosevelt MIGHT have done if Hitler and Mussolini had held their fire.  But they declared war, immediately stepped up their already aggressive sub warfare campaigns and left us with no choice.

We were not and should rarely be in the business of fighting wars to liberate others.  And in those rare circumstances where it may be warranted, they damn well better be the kind of people who demonstrate a willingness to fight WITH us.

Often, people say, "Well, France helped America win freedom from British tyranny".  Sure -- okay, fine.  Couldn't have done it without them.  But we bore the brunt of the fight for years and had a demonstrated committment to liberty.  And then once liberty was secured, the French did not stay for eight years, building green zones around Philadelphia and rooting out British and Tory resistance.

Sorry for the rant.  But I have to wonder if the question wasn't headed in that tired, worn out direction of "Well we fought Hitler to end tyranny so why not Saddam?"  I'm getting pretty friggin' sick of that load of crap.

Even though most people answered that Hitler wouldn't have invaded the United States? If someone tells you they want to fight, but there are several people between you, and you could easily beat them, why bother?

Japan would've. And Germany was allied with Japan.

Okay, then simply fight the war on the Pacific front. Given that Hitler himself posed no direct threat to us, what point was there in fighting in the European front? Hitler was going to lose the war regardless of whether we intervened, why not let him and Stalin kill each other while they're at it?

[SPC]

1. Using the just-war theory, what justification did America have to get involved in WWI (and don't say "Lusitania". That was a British ship that had prior warning about a German attack.)

Perhaps the Zimmerman telegram is your best bet. Trying to provoke Mexico to attack the US is clearly grounds for war. Keep in mind that the US was already supplying France and Britain with weapons before then.

And why were we supplying weapons when we were supposedly neutral?

Because there was money to be had. I thought you, of all people, what understand that money talks.

I don't think that the U.S. Government should be taking sides in a war for money. Private businesses can do that if they want, but the government shouldn't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Attacking a country because it put sanctions on you...that's a new one.[/quote]

Tell that to Osama bin Laden, whose fatwa against America cites the sanctions against Iraq.[/quote]

Osama bin Laden's fatwas are meaningless.[/quote]

That's a red herring if I've ever heard one. Someone says attacking a country because of sanctions is ridiculous. I show an example and you call it 'meaningless'?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It would be unacceptable today to target civilians. But back then everyone did it.[/quote]

Two wrongs don't make a right.[/quote]

They do in war.[/quote]

I find it hard to comprehend how you can oppose the death penalty for murderers but support it for civilians.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. But Harry Truman wanted to show off his new war gizmo. And not using A-Bombs would certainly have resulted in Soviet troops in Hokkaido and a Japanese Cold War satellite state.
[/quote]

If that was the case, wouldn't it have made more sense to bomb the Soviets, if at all?
[/quote]

You want to fight a war with Russia? That's insane.
[/quote]

I don't want to fight a war with Russia. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of the argument. The idea that we needed to kill Japanese civilians to keep Soviets out of Japan is preposterous.

[SPC]

1. Using the just-war theory, what justification did America have to get involved in WWI (and don't say "Lusitania". That was a British ship that had prior warning about a German attack.)

The Zimmermann telegram of course. If you don't know about that one, then uhm...

Mexico didn't invade us though. They were simply asked to.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lol no, in fact it would've have been even more one-sided. The US was the most moderate of the Allies in terms on the Versaille treaty.[/quote]

However, the war wouldn't have been as decisive an Allied victory if we didn't enter the war, thus making a balanced treaty more likely.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Versaille treaty played a part oc, but the Great Depression was a large cause of his rise. [/quote]

Germany's economic problems were caused by the hyperinflation, which were caused by the Frech occupaton of Ruhr Valley, caused by Versailles.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you expect that the Hashemites would've been able to set up an Arab state that is actually stable and can survive? The obvious answer is non. Hussein was a lunatic. And blaming the British for all post-war conflicts in those regions is a bit extreme. [/quote]

There wouldn't be as many territorial conflicts if the British had drawn the boundaries with respect to the inhabiting ethnic groups, rather than how they did.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. I doubt Japan attacked Pearl Harbour as a reaction to "the mean Americans placed SANCTIONS on Japan!!! ATTACK!". The Japanese didn't care much for sanctions. [/quote]

What other reason would they have for attacking Pearl Harbor? It's not like the Japanese would be so idiotic as to attack one of the most powerful nations in the world for no reason.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Don't compare Hitler and Stalin to Napoleon. Yes, Napoleon killed people. But he didn't set up death camps and commit mass genocides. And declaring war on the USSR must be the stupidest thing I've heard. [/quote]

That wasn't the area where I was comparing them. I was comparing them because all attempted to conquer Europe.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Extremely unlikely. The Japanese posed more of a threat. [/quote]

Which was my point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's war.[/quote]

Would killing civilians be justified during peace? If you answer no, as any rational person would, then why do the rules change during war? Do all laws get suspended by war, or just murder laws?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. But Truman wanted to win in Japan without the Soviets doing anything. If he hadn't chosen to drop the bomb, the USSR would've invaded Japan and the victory would've been a joint US-USSR victory, which the Americans couldn't accept.
[/quote]

Again, explain why we needed to bomb Japan to stop the Soviets? Also, I'm sure that the 200,000 dead from Hiroshima alone wouldn't have cared whether the U.S. or the Soviets killed them.

[SPC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol@you for thinking that a valid question.

Again, I suppose you think that Japan attacked a world power that was sure to provoke war against them for no reason whatsoever? That's incredibly foolish.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because nothing should be done about genocide if it's happening overseas!!!!!!11

Idiot[/quote]

Ironic that you're calling me an idiot for that even though that was precisely my point. That should be eually applicable for Hitler.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Idiot[/quote]

Again, exactly my point. Given that Germany couldn't have invaded the United States, there wasn't any real point for the U.S. to participate in the European front of the war.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think that they were exactly targeted (in the sense that we have, shamefully, become used to today) in the first war. But, yes, it does matter in one sense (one of these days I *will* destroy the statue of Bomber Harris; the man was a war criminal and nothing more and it is shameful that we have a statue to him). Still. Where are you going with this? Trying to imply that the bombings and the crimes of the Nazis were as evil as each other? Don't be stupid.[/quote]

No, I'm just saying that two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the bombings weren't as evil as Nazi war crimes doesn't justify them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A conditional surrender was politically unacceptable and might not have been that realistic anyway. I don't think the bombings can be justified as such, but it is possible to argue that they were the least-worst option, Hiroshima more than Nagasaki.
[/quote]

It wasn't realistic even though Japan had easked for it. Also, since we were supposedly fighting the war to avenge Japan for the 4,000 deaths at Pearl Harbor, how does it make sense to get back by killing >200,000?

[SPC]

SPC, it's sad to see you leave the ranks of sanity, please no longer refer to yourself as conservative, you've begun to scarf down that pseudolibertariananarchistwhitesupremacistnationalisocapitalistconspiracy bullsh**t salad that has become so popular amongst ugly unpopular scabs like yourself, I'm sorry that your only friends turned out to be homeless people and drug addicts who think "V for Vendetta" is pure philosophy, I'm sorry your peers include smelly people with dreadlocks and tattoos or people with ponytails and high socks, who think books like "1984" and "BNW" are solid prophecy. I know you're the only "true Americans" left, but please leave the rest of us alone and stop posting.

I haven't refered to myself as conservative recently besides my username, and I just keep that so people don't get confused. How can I be considered a white supremacist when I find genocide to be abhorrent? I don't consider myself a conspiracy theorist either. I live in a prosperous neighborhood, so I don't know where all the homeless stuff came from, and given that I've never posted a picture of myself, I don't know how you can incorrectly infer that I'm ugly.

[SPC]

SPC, notice you're arguing with the forum's socialists who appear hawkish compared to you, who just looks like an idiot, I hope you're joking with all this.

I fail to perceive your point. Back in the day, it was conservatives such as Herbert Hoover and Robert Taft who opposed military agression overseas. The socialists supported the war and even started it.

[SPC]

SPC asks...If we needed to declare war against Germany to stop Hitler, why didn't we 'need' to declare war on Russia to stop the genocidal Stalin? Did we 'need' to declare war on France in the 19th Century to stop Napoleon?

Wow.  Just...wow.  When will the ignorance end?  I have met more people who think we declared war on Germany and Italy because they were totalitarian states, to save the Jews of Europe, to liberate France and to end tyranny and Fascism.

That's not what happened.  We declared war on Germany and Italy because...<drumroll>...they declared war on us first. When someone declares war on you, it's generally thought that a state of war exists.  Now, we can argue til doomsday about what Roosevelt MIGHT have done if Hitler and Mussolini had held their fire.  But they declared war, immediately stepped up their already aggressive sub warfare campaigns and left us with no choice.

We were not and should rarely be in the business of fighting wars to liberate others.  And in those rare circumstances where it may be warranted, they damn well better be the kind of people who demonstrate a willingness to fight WITH us.

Often, people say, "Well, France helped America win freedom from British tyranny".  Sure -- okay, fine.  Couldn't have done it without them.  But we bore the brunt of the fight for years and had a demonstrated committment to liberty.  And then once liberty was secured, the French did not stay for eight years, building green zones around Philadelphia and rooting out British and Tory resistance.

Sorry for the rant.  But I have to wonder if the question wasn't headed in that tired, worn out direction of "Well we fought Hitler to end tyranny so why not Saddam?"  I'm getting pretty friggin' sick of that load of crap.

Even though most people answered that Hitler wouldn't have invaded the United States? If someone tells you they want to fight, but there are several people between you, and you could easily beat them, why bother?

Japan would've. And Germany was allied with Japan.

Okay, then simply fight the war on the Pacific front. Given that Hitler himself posed no direct threat to us, what point was there in fighting in the European front? Hitler was going to lose the war regardless of whether we intervened, why not let him and Stalin kill each other while they're at it?

Hitler declared war on America.

But if there was no way that he could possibly pose a threat to America, then what was the point?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps the Zimmerman telegram is your best bet. Trying to provoke Mexico to attack the US is clearly grounds for war. Keep in mind that the US was already supplying France and Britain with weapons before then.[/quote]

And why were we supplying weapons when we were supposedly neutral?[/quote]

Because there was money to be had. I thought you, of all people, what understand that money talks.[/quote]

I don't think that the U.S. Government should be taking sides in a war for money. Private businesses can do that if they want, but the government shouldn't.[/quote]

I thought you believed that government shouldn't be doing such things at all.[/quote]

Correct. Government shouldn't be starting wars or intervening in them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It would be unacceptable today to target civilians. But back then everyone did it.[/quote]

Two wrongs don't make a right.[/quote]

They do in war.[/quote]

I find it hard to comprehend how you can oppose the death penalty for murderers but support it for civilians.[/quote]

I don't like war. But when you're in one, normal rules do not apply. If you kill, you're a hero, not a murderer.[/quote]

If the government is restrained to a social contract during peacetime, but all rules are suspended during wartime, where is the incentive for the government to maintain peace?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. But Harry Truman wanted to show off his new war gizmo. And not using A-Bombs would certainly have resulted in Soviet troops in Hokkaido and a Japanese Cold War satellite state.
[/quote]

If that was the case, wouldn't it have made more sense to bomb the Soviets, if at all?
[/quote]

You want to fight a war with Russia? That's insane.
[/quote]

I don't want to fight a war with Russia. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of the argument. The idea that we needed to kill Japanese civilians to keep Soviets out of Japan is preposterous.
[/quote]

An invasion of Japan would have resulted in many more civilian deaths.
[/quote]

Even though they were willing to negociate a conditional surrender? I'd like to see you hold that up in court, that you commited a murder, but that murder was done to prevent that person from being murdered from another guy. I doubt any judge would acquit you on that basis.

[SPC]

1. Using the just-war theory, what justification did America have to get involved in WWI (and don't say "Lusitania". That was a British ship that had prior warning about a German attack.)

The Zimmermann telegram of course. If you don't know about that one, then uhm...

Mexico didn't invade us though. They were simply asked to.

The US saw the telegram as a provocation. Germany was asking a country to invade a country not officialy at war with Germany.

The official Wikipedia article on the Zimmerman telegram says that Germany asked Mexico to invade the United States if the United States entered the war! That sounds like more of a reason to stay out that to enter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. I doubt Japan attacked Pearl Harbour as a reaction to "the mean Americans placed SANCTIONS on Japan!!! ATTACK!". The Japanese didn't care much for sanctions. [/quote]

What other reason would they have for attacking Pearl Harbor? It's not like the Japanese would be so idiotic as to attack one of the most powerful nations in the world for no reason.
[/quote]

Whatever it is, it was for sure not 'sanctions'. [/quote]

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black, given that your mocking me for blaming sanctions as the reason yet you fail to come up with a credible reason yourself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Don't compare Hitler and Stalin to Napoleon. Yes, Napoleon killed people. But he didn't set up death camps and commit mass genocides. And declaring war on the USSR must be the stupidest thing I've heard. [/quote]

That wasn't the area where I was comparing them. I was comparing them because all attempted to conquer Europe.
[/quote]

The US foreign policy in 1815 wasn't the same as they the US foreign policy in 1945.[/quote]

Which is what I was complaining about!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. But Truman wanted to win in Japan without the Soviets doing anything. If he hadn't chosen to drop the bomb, the USSR would've invaded Japan and the victory would've been a joint US-USSR victory, which the Americans couldn't accept.
[/quote]

Again, explain why we needed to bomb Japan to stop the Soviets? Also, I'm sure that the 200,000 dead from Hiroshima alone wouldn't have cared whether the U.S. or the Soviets killed them.
[/quote]

I just did. If the US hadn't dropped the bomb and invaded, the Soviets would have joined them in the invasion making it a joint American-Soviet victory, like in Germany. And possibly leading to the same situation as in Germany.
[/quote]

1. The Japanese were willing to make a conditional surrender to the Allies.
2. Even if that would happen otherwise, why didn't the U.S. drop it on a sparsely populated area, rather than a place bound to cause hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths?

[SPC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Other than to, you know, help to overthrow an astonishingly agressive, evil and bloodthirsty regime. A minor detail for you, I'm sure.

1. Hitler was going to lose the war whether we intervened or not.
2. As I said earlier, you could use the same argument for invading the USSR.
3. Thank you, Al, for actually treating my positions with respect, unlike other posters here.

[SPC]

Wait. When somebody declares war on you, you don't reciprocate? That's new.

When someone threatens you who has no capibility whatsoever on posing a threat to the continental United States, I think it would be a wiser option to simply laugh them off.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then you haven't a leg to stand on.[/quote]

Waging wars in self-defense is justified. Provoking Japan into bombing Pearl Harbor, doing nothing to lower casualties beforehand, and then using that as an excuse to get involved in two fronts on opposite sides of the world isn't self-defense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm trying to explain things in terms of money here, since it seems to be what you understand. War costs money.[/quote]

Which is another reason to fight then sparingly. If you're so eager to get involved in a war, then fund it yourself, rather than forcing taxpayers to do it for you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If I committed a murder to prevent 5 other people from being murdered by some other guy, I think I would be acquitted.[/quote]

And what if the family of the person you murdered doesn't believe that you did it to prevent more murders? Are you going to tell them that the ends justified the means? If Hiroshima and Nagasaki really did prevent further deaths, then why didn't the Japanese thank us for killing 200,000 of their civilians, depite their willing to negociate a peace?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I fail to perceive your point. Back in the day, it was conservatives such as Herbert Hoover and Robert Taft who opposed military agression overseas. The socialists supported the war and even started it.
[/quote]

Oh? Why was Debs imprisoned?
[/quote]

I didn't say all socialists supported the war. What I meant was that socialists such as Hitler and Mussolini started the war. Also, your example of Debs seems to be counterproductive, given that you admire him and yet he agrees with me that WWI didn't have justification for US entry.

[SPC]

When someone threatens you who has no capibility whatsoever on posing a threat to the continental United States, I think it would be a wiser option to simply laugh them off.

Maybe, if this were Tajikistan or Burkina Faso.

But Hitler was completely capable of wreaking havoc on the United States, by attacking US ships or damaging infrastructure (blowing up railways, power lines, etc). Which is what did happen.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson8.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sure the financial consequences of an outright invasion by Axis forces (which would have been possible if the Japanese were successful at Midway) would outweigh the costs of fighting.

And I'm not sure funding private mercenaries (like Blackwater or similar goons in years past) is a good idea.

Who said the government should be funding them? If you, as a private citizen, wish to be involved in a foreign war, then fund it yourself through mercenaries, rather than forcing the entire population to fund it for you through taxation and conscription.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you're a general commanding several battalions sometimes you'll have to sacrifice thousands of troops to be abandoned if it increases the chance of damaging the enemy.

A conditional surrender into 1946 or 1947 would definitely have caused Japan to become like Germany, with a Soviet satellite state occupying southern Sakhalin and Hokkaido. Tokyo would have become divided like Berlin. After dividing up Europe with Stalin, I'm sure Truman would not like a repeat in East Asia.[/quote]

Who said that a conditional surrender would have to be in 1946/7? They were willing to do it in 1945, prior to Hiroshima!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mussolini and Hitler were socialists.

*buzzt*

Wrong answer.
[/quote]

Last time I checked, national socialism was a form of socialism. Albeit a different brand of socialism than others, but still socialism.

[SPC]

Why are yall still arguing with SPC?  Is it not yet clear that he's just dicking around?

Yes, I suppose you could say I am dicking around, giving that I like exposing the inconsistencies in leftist arguments.

SPC, a libertarian hack site isn't a source. I wouldn't put that in my history paper.

Lewrockwell.com had more hits the CFR.org, which is considering a mainstream Washington thinktank.

Flyers, do some research on Woodrow Wilson's vision of post war Europe and please adjust your statements, and try not to be such a bigoted murderer with your torpedo statement, in case you haven't noticed, it's not "trendy" or "cool" to tow that American IRA bullsh**t, if Ireland has moved past it, so can your fat American ass.

Even though I'm an Anglophile, I think Hockey has a point regarding the Lusitania.  However, it was the Zimmerman Note, a real threat, that sparked the US entry into WWI.

The Zimmerman Note said that Germany would urge Mexico to invade if the United States entered the war!

[SPC]

He's not kidding, he's Fukcing retarded.

Funny how you've been more than willing to insult me numerous timesthroughout the thread, yet only once in this three-page thread have you actually been willing to debate my arguments. Since this is a political debate forum, I recommend you save your childish behavior for other forums.